Montana Workers’ Compensation Court

Derek Trogden v. Montana State Fund
Citation: 2026 MTWCC 1
Case Number: WCC No. MSF-2024-0000559-SET
Court: Montana Workers’ Compensation Court
Date of Decision: March 6, 2026

Attorneys:

• For Petitioner: Alex K. Evans for Trogden
• For Respondent: Melissa Quale for Montana State Fund

Factual Background

The petitioner, Derek Trogden, suffered a work-related injury to his right ankle and right hip on October 27, 2020, while working as a tow-truck operator. The claim was accepted by Montana State Fund, which pays him permanent total disability (PTD) benefits of $1,385.86 bi-weekly ($692.93 per week).

Trogden petitioned the Workers’ Compensation Court to convert his PTD benefits into a lump-sum payment, arguing that the lump sum would allow him to pay down debt and purchase an annuity that would generate greater long-term income for his family. He asserted financial hardship based on family expenses, debt totaling approximately $46,981, and the anticipated medical retirement of his wife due to multiple sclerosis.

The insurer denied the request, arguing that the petitioner did not demonstrate the statutory “financial need” required for a lump-sum conversion.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied § 39-71-741(2)(c), MCA, which provides that lump-sum conversion of PTD benefits is an exception and may only be granted if the claimant proves financial need related to necessities of life, pre-injury debt, a feasible self-employment venture, or post-injury reduced income.

After examining the household finances, the court found:

• The Trogdens’ combined monthly income (PTD benefits plus spouse’s earnings) was approximately $6,303.57.
• Their necessary monthly living expenses were approximately $4,141.41.
• This left a surplus of roughly $2,162 per month.

Because the household income exceeded the cost of necessities, the court concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated the statutory “financial need.”

The court also rejected arguments based on anticipated future hardship (such as the spouse’s possible medical retirement), explaining that the court must evaluate the claimant’s financial condition as it presently exists rather than speculate about future changes.

Holding

The court denied the request for a lump-sum conversion of PTD benefits. The court further denied the petitioner’s request for:

• A 20% penalty for unreasonable refusal, and
• Costs and attorney’s fees,

because no benefits were found to be owed.

Key Takeaway

Under § 39-71-741, MCA, a claimant seeking lump-sum conversion of PTD benefits must first prove a present “financial need” tied to the necessities of life. Where household income exceeds necessary living expenses—even if the claimant carries substantial debt or anticipates future financial hardship—the statutory threshold is not met, and the court will deny lump-sum conversion.

Scott C. Simone v. Old Republic Insurance Company
Citation: 2026 MTWCC 2
Workers’ Compensation Court Case No.: WCC No. PI-2025-0000776-WCI
Court: Montana Workers’ Compensation Court
Date of Decision: March 6, 2026

Attorneys

• Petitioner’s Counsel: Eric Rasmusson for Simone
• Respondent’s Counsel: Steven W. Jennings for Old Republic Ins. Co.

Factual Background

The parties settled a workers’ compensation dispute and requested that the Workers’ Compensation Court incorporate the settlement into a court order. The settlement required the insurer to pay $42,014.91 within 30 days of the Court’s approval.

The Court approved the settlement on April 28, 2025. The insurer requested issuance of the settlement check on May 16, 2025, mailed it on May 20, 2025, and it arrived on June 2, 2025, which was three days after the 30-day deadline (two days falling on a weekend).

The petitioner sought penalties under Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-2907, arguing the late arrival constituted an unreasonable delay and later moved for reconsideration after the Court denied the claim.

Court’s Analysis

The Court denied reconsideration for several reasons:

1. Statutory Applicability:
   The 30-day payment requirement in Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-107(7)(b) applies only to Department of Labor & Industry–approved settlements, not settlements incorporated into a Workers’ Compensation Court order.
2. Unreasonable Delay Standard:
   Whether delay is unreasonable is a question of fact, and the petitioner bears the burden of proof. The petitioner presented no evidence (such as expert testimony, industry standards, or mail transit data) showing the insurer acted unreasonably.
3. Insurer Conduct:
   The insurer mailed the check eight days before the deadline, which the Court found inconsistent with unreasonable conduct.
4. New Arguments on Reconsideration:
   Constitutional arguments raised for the first time on reconsideration were procedurally improper and could not be considered.
5. Mootness:
   Because the settlement payment had already been made and accepted, the motion to compel payment was moot.

Holding

The Court held that the petitioner failed to meet the standard for reconsideration and failed to prove that the insurer unreasonably delayed payment. The Motion for Reconsideration was denied.

Key Takeaway

A court-approved workers’ compensation settlement is governed by the court order and § 39-71-2907, not the administrative 30-day payment rule in § 39-71-107(7)(b). To obtain penalties for late payment, a claimant must present actual evidence demonstrating that the insurer’s conduct was unreasonable, not merely that payment arrived after the deadline.

Montana Workers’ Compensation Stipulations Summary (through March 13, 2026)

PLAN 1

PLAN 2

ESD Settlements Approved through March 6, 2026

Plan 2

Plan 3

5 Key Insights for Montana Work Comp Professionals

1. The Workers’ Compensation Court is strictly enforcing the “present financial need” standard for PTD lump-sum conversions

In Trogden v. Montana State Fund, 2026 MTWCC 1, the Court denied conversion of PTD benefits to a lump sum because the claimant’s household income exceeded necessary living expenses by about $2,162 per month.

Professional implication:
Even significant debt (~$46,981) and potential future financial hardship were insufficient. Practitioners should expect the Court to require clear present-day inability to meet necessities, not speculative future hardship.

2. Court-approved settlements are not governed by the DLI 30-day payment statute

In Simone v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 2026 MTWCC 2, the Court clarified that the 30-day payment rule in §39-71-107(7)(b), MCA applies only to Department-approved settlements, not to settlements incorporated into WCC orders.

Professional implication:
Late payment penalties in WCC settlements will instead be evaluated under §39-71-2907 (unreasonable delay), which requires proof of unreasonable conduct—not merely a late arrival of payment.

3. Evidence of insurer conduct is critical to penalty claims

The Court rejected the penalty request in Simone partly because the insurer mailed the check eight days before the deadline, which the Court viewed as reasonable conduct.

Professional implication:
Penalty litigation now increasingly hinges on objective evidence such as:

• industry payment practices
• mailing timelines
• claims handling documentation

Claimants alleging delay will need expert or documentary evidence.

4. Settlement values show major variation based on case posture and plan classification

The settlement data reveals large differences across cases:

• Plan 1 WCC settlements: ~$50,000–$140,500
• Plan 2 settlements: ~$2,500–$28,000
• Plan 3 settlements: ranging from $1,500 to $400,000

Professional implication:
Plan classification and procedural posture (WCC petition vs. ESD best-interest settlement) appear to strongly influence settlement value.

5. A small number of defense firms appear frequently across insurer representations

The settlement list shows Crowley Fleck attorneys (e.g., Joe Maynard) repeatedly appearing as respondent counsel in multiple cases across carriers.

Professional implication:
Defense representation in Montana workers’ compensation litigation appears highly concentrated among a few specialized firms, which may influence litigation strategy, negotiation patterns, and precedent familiarity.

✅ Bottom Line for Montana WC Practitioners:
Recent WCC activity reflects strict statutory interpretation, high evidentiary expectations for penalties, and a settlement landscape heavily shaped by claim posture and insurer plan type.